The "Should Muslims be Allowed in the military" question takes on a new dimension

Status
Not open for further replies.

rock jock

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,008
Location
In the moment
This is referring to an earlier thread wherein some members suggested that Muslims in the military should be subject to increased scrutiny and were criticized because of this opinion.

Guess they were right.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 American interpreters at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who are under suspicion of espionage may have sabotaged interviews with detainees by inaccurately translating interrogators' questions and prisoners' answers, senior American officials said on Monday.

It is unclear in how many cases, if any, this may have happened, the officials said. But military investigators are taking the issue seriously enough to review taped interrogations involving the Arabic-language interpreters under scrutiny to spot-check their accuracy.

If the investigators' worst fears are realized, officials said, scores of interviews with suspected Qaeda or Taliban prisoners at the Cuban detention center could be compromised, and military officials could be forced to reinterview many of the camp's 680 detainees.

"There are enough suggestions that give us cause to compare the audiotapes with the translations," said one senior American official familiar with the inquiry. The official declined to say what those suggestions were, and other senior American officials similarly refused to cite any specific evidence of deliberate mistranslation by the interpreters.

The concerns about the reliability of some of the camp's 70 military and civilian linguists only add to the growing mystery surrounding the motives and objectives of as many as 10 people who worked at the camp, had contact with the prisoners and now are under suspicion in the widening inquiry, military officials said.

Pentagon (news - web sites) officials are saying very little publicly about the cases, in part because they are still baffled about whether there was a conspiracy to infiltrate the camp, and in part because of the nature of the investigation, a sensitive matter involving military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Top defense officials have yet to explain publicly what any of the accused spies might have been trying to achieve at Guantánamo Bay, a heavily guarded camp on an American naval base.

The most serious charges have been leveled against an Air Force interpreter, Senior Airman Ahmad I. al-Halabi, 24, who is accused of committing espionage by trying to deliver information to Syria, including 180 messages from prisoners, many of their names, and flight schedules in and out of the camp.

Military officials have privately suggested a range of theories, including the possibility that the interpreters sabotaged the interrogations. This theory was first reported by CNN on Saturday.

One senior Air Force official said Monday that terrorists who might gain inside information from American confederates at the camp could have been trying to disrupt flights to and from the base. Another official said that terrorist leaders, by learning from the confederates which prisoners were in custody and what they were telling American interrogators, could try to mitigate the damage to their operations.

On one level, each branch of the military is investigating the espionage-related accusations against members of its own service. But a senior defense official said these inquiries were being coordinated as part of a broader investigation involving numerous government agencies that he would not discuss in detail.

"The worst fear is that it's all one interrelated network that was inspired by Al Qaeda," said a senior Air Force official. "But we don't have any concrete evidence of that yet."

There are also tantalizing clues that the military knows much more about at least some of the suspects than it is letting on. For instance, court documents filed in Airman al-Halabi's case show that Air Force authorities were monitoring the airman, a Syrian-born supply clerk, before he was sent to Guantánamo Bay in November 2002. But the documents do not say why he was under investigation. Most of the documents in the case are classified.

Other senior officials, including Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have also hinted that authorities at Guantánamo may know more about the suspects than they are saying.

"We had, I'll just say, things in place, counterintelligence capabilities in place to try to prevent this," General Myers told reporters on Thursday.

The growing concerns over the magnitude of potential security breaches at Guantánamo came as Pentagon officials said Monday that a Navy sailor who worked at the prison camp was questioned by naval investigators over the weekend and released. They gave no details.

That questioning brought to four the total number of people the military has interrogated in relation to possible espionage at the Cuban detention facility, but a senior military official said about 10 people altogether are under scrutiny.

So far, three men an Army chaplain and two Arabic-language interpreters, including Airman al-Halabi who worked at the base with the suspected Qaeda and Taliban prisoners have been arrested, separately. They are all being held on suspicion of espionage.

The most recent arrest happened last week in Boston, involving Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, a civilian translator, who was detained after authorities found that a compact disc he was carrying contained government documents marked "secret."

About three other people are under active surveillance, including the sailor questioned over the weekend and an Air Force service member who was a linguist at the base, two defense officials said. There are about three or four other people who may have had close contacts with the other six, said one of the officials who declined to described them further.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials have in recent days sought to give the impression that the military is on top the investigation.

"Historically we know that when you are in a war and you have enemies, that they are going to seek to find ways to advantage themselves and disadvantage you," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters last Thursday. "It's been so throughout history."

Mr. Rumsfeld also defended the commander of the military interrogation center at the Cuban detainee camp, Maj. Gen. Geoff Miller of the Army.

Privately, however, military officials voice deeper concerns about the scope of any possible spy penetration at the prison camp, and the ultimate goal of any conspiracy. A team of investigators from the United States Southern Command in Miami arrived at the camp last week to review security procedures.
 
Rock, buddy

doesn't look like anybody wants to touch this one anymore.
 
Yes

I say they should be allowed to serve but the American military should not make any kind of special accomodations for them. There is the perception in America and around the world that we are at war with muslims who carry out terrorist acts against American citizens. We are, but the war isn't against Islam, per se; it's against homicidal killers who have killed in the name of Islam. Unfortunately, nowadays there is no distinction that's made between the two. Islam is seen as being the religion of those who are fanatic killers and that's the hard truth.

The officers of the US military are pragmatists, and despite political correctness they will move to protect their system, as they should. They don't have to operate within the same rules as civilians do but they do have to answer to elected civilians. If they had their way, Taliban John would have been executed when he was captured, as he should have and would have been if it had not been for the intervention of the civilian criminal justice authorities.

Unfortunately, Americans have become soft-headed and weak hearted when it comes to dealing with it's enemies. I guess we haven't arrived at the point where we are thinking that it's us or them.

Our grandfathers during WWII didn't hesitate to shoot Nazi infiltrators who were wearing US Army uniforms and trying to kill our soldiers. I guess the "steel" that they had back then has been successively gelded out of the current generation. I just hope that it's not too far gone if we should ever need it again.
 
Why is it that no one ever uses audio and/or video tapes when questioning these people?

Sure would make it easier to determine if someone is getting cute. Just run the tapes of the interview and voila! you can instantly see if a scam is in progress.

OOPS! I forgot that like the FBI most of the interogators only need to rely on their memories and poorly transcribed paper/pencil notes and they wouldn't want to be embarrassed if review brought out they blew it.

Stupid response is going to be that there will be an overwhelming amount of info to handle. Doesn't wash in a cassette recorder age much less a digital age.

One of the neat tricks when dealing with people who are not totally literate in a particular language is that the way you say something can be quite different from what you actually say. Allows you to communicate on a different level from the obvious one. Think talking with teenagers.
 
Intelligence agencies usually use double-blind interpreters to check up on one another to be sure that the first interpreter isn't communicating subtleties to the interrogation subject.

Ideally all communications should be videotaped, and then sent to the second interpreter for review. Even better would be a "test signal" of random fake videos where an interpreter/translator is collaborating with the enemy subject to see if the second interpreter is also covering up any espionage, or reports it.

Unfortunately the logistics of creating convincing fake interrogation videos to test the second interpreter is daunting to say the least.
 
I don't really see it as Muslim vs Non-Muslim.

There are Muslims whose families have been in this nation since the 19th Century, with each generation of men serving with honor since the Civil War or longer. There are Muslims who are here because they fled fanatism (I know several Iranians like this) and they are about as likely to support the Muslims extremists as a German Jew was to support the German Nazis.

It's more a matter of when, from where and why someone is here, and while we should not open ourselves with naive political correctness, we also should not hobble our intellegence services with blanket fears.

In WWII, a large share of our German translators were German (imagine that). I suspect that we put the fellow who immigrated in 1936 under more scrutiny than the 3rd-generation Nebraska farm kid who grew up speaking German as a first language. Then again, we did not reject the 1936 German immigrants out of hand -- for one reason, they were here was due to their hatred (or at least fear) of our enemies, and that was very easy to translate into loyalty to us.

The intellgence business, by its very nature, requires taking chances in order to get returns. Imagine if the OSS has not taken chances with iffy Germans or Japanese in WWII. Imagine if the CIA had not taken chances with iffy Russians during the Cold War. Yep, there were losses and mistakes, but that didn't make us clean shop of people whose history might make them sympathetic to the enemy. Indeed, even as we were putting Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, we were using the inmates' fathers, sons and brothers in our intellegence services
 
Its a sad commentary on the state of affairs, but the first thought that popped into my head upon reading this was "What paper is it from?"

New York Times, Wash Post, etc are much different from Wash Times, New York Post etc.

Seems like every time we see something about these types of incidents, the liberal rags scream "discrimination" and the conservative ones "traitors".

I want some independent place to turn to for my news, free of spin.

Back on topic, yes if the story is true we have something to worry about.
I also agree that its a delicate topic that I'm sure the military wishes they didn't have to deal with....
 
This is referring to an earlier thread wherein some members suggested that Muslims in the military should be subject to increased scrutiny and were criticized because of this opinion.

Guess they were right.

Told you so.














:neener: :neener: :neener:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top